|

High court upholds ObamaCare!

In a huge political victory for President Obama, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional in every respect.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.

Details to follow.

UPDATE: It was 5-4 decision, not 6-3 as I mistakenly reported above. Roberts cast the deciding vote. Anthony Kennedy sided with the conservatives.

UPDATE II: If you want to plow through the court’s decision and dissents in this case, have at it HERE.

UPDATE III: The right-wing blogosphere is going bonkers. I’ll have a stand-alone post on wingnut reactions later this morning.

UPDATE IV: Both CNN and Fox News Channel initially — and mistakenly — REPORTED that the court had struck down the mandate.

UPDATE V: The court’s various prevailing opinions and dissents in the ObamaCare case total a whopping 185 pages.

UPDATE VI: All in all, it’s been a bad week for conservatives. The Arizona immigration law was mostly overturned. ObamaCare was upheld. The Fast and Furious crapola was roundly debunked. The president made gains over Mitt Romney in the polls, especially in swing states.

Yeah, a very bad week for our right-wing friends.

UPDATE VII: Interestingly, three of the five justices comprising the majority in the ObamaCare case were women — Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

UPDATE VIII: House Republicans are PLANNING to vote on repeal of ObamaCare in the next few weeks.

Of course, that will just be for show to appease the right-wing base. A repeal measure will go nowhere in the Senate.

UPDATE IX: In the final analysis, Chief Justice Roberts has saved the court — and himself — from historical ignominy and an unholy mess.

Had the court overturned ObamaCare, it would have rewritten constitutional law and called into question tons of economic regulatory laws adopted over the past 100 years or more.

UPDATE X: Incidentally, right-wingers who threaten to move to Canada in the wake of the court’s ruling had better think again.

Canada’s health-care system amounts to ObamaCare on steroids.

But then, even wingnuts might come to like the Canadian system after a while.

 

Share:

10 Comments

  1. Neftali

    Bloody Hell. Well…if there is any small victory in this, its that the individual mandate is illegal as part of the Commerce Clause, contrary to what the liberals have been claiming. Unfortunately, yet understandably, the individual mandates survives as a tax.

    drat.

  2. Truth About Energy

    I thought that Roberts was that staunch conservative that Bush gave us. The Bush Presidency will be regarded as a failure, followed by one (two?) additional term(s) of failure. By the way, Newt was right about the court system. Look into what Thomas Jefferson did during his first term.

  3. Luke Fredrickson

    Yet it appears they do not support the mandate under the authority of the Commerce Clause, but rather as a tax? Grover Norquist must be apoplectic…

  4. Luke Fredrickson

    Actually it was the Heritage Foundation that first proclaimed the individual mandate was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Gutless repubs flip flopped as usual.

  5. expdoc

    This is a relief (I think) on multiple levels.

    This proves that all the speculation about right wing stacking of the court and the political attacks on the Supreme Court justices were unfounded and embarrasing. The justices are legal experts who really seem to have done their best to rule in light of their personal understanding of the Constitution.

    This proves that the Obama team lied when they said they would not raise taxes on the middle class.

    This energizes the Republican base for the fall elections.

    This avoids some of the chaos that would have resulted in my industry if the mandate would have been overturned. We (and most healthcare organizations) have been planning for this transition, and taking it back would have been incredibly costly. The reform as passed is far from perfect, but at least we know generally what it is going to entail.

    Remember though that the passed reforms only addressed one aspect of reform (increased coverage) and not the more important issue (decreasing healthcare costs for the country as a whole).

    My only uncertainty in regards to this point is that it seems that the Court has prevented Congress from mandating that the states expand Medicaid to address provision in the law. I am not sure what the implication of that will be, but I am anxious to hear.

  6. Truth About Energy

    Newt 1, Romney 0 “Jefferson himself was asked, is the Supreme Court supreme? And he said, that is absurd. That would be an oligarchy. Lincoln repudiates the Dred Scott decision in his first inaugural address in 1861 and says, no nine people can make law in this country. That would be the end of our freedom. So I would suggest to you, actually as a historian, I may understand this better than lawyers. And as lawyers those two attorneys general are behaving exactly like law schools, which have overly empowered lawyers to think that they can dictate to the rest of us.” http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/12/16/the-republican-debate-grotesquely-dictatorial-courts-and-more/

  7. Truth About Energy thinks he’s an “historian.”

    What a laugh!

  8. expdoc

    I notice that Pat stated in update VI that this is “a very bad week for our right-wing friends”.

    I’m not so convinced of that for the reasons I noted in my first post here.

    I really liked this response from the DNC. Very revealing.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/how-the-dnc-is-celebrating-127543.html

  9. Truth About Energy

    This decision really helps Romney out, it took us back to 2010. That is clear.

  10. Milton Waddams

    Truth about Energy was quoting Newt Gingrich, he just didn’t make it very clear that was what he was doing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>